US v. William Davis, No. 15-7051 (4th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-7051 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. WILLIAM THOMAS DAVIS, a/k/a Burglar, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Wheeling. Frederick P. Stamp, Jr., Senior District Judge. (5:08-cr-00021-FPS-JSK-1; 5:13-cv00116-FPS-JSK) Submitted: December 28, 2015 Decided: December 30, 2015 Before WYNN and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge. Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion. William Thomas Davis, Appellant Pro Se. David J. Perri, Assistant United States Attorney, Wheeling, West Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: William Thomas Davis seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. Davis claimed residual that clause it of was the constitutional Armed Career Among other things, error Criminal to Act apply (ACCA) the to enhance his sentence and that the residual clause of the ACCA was unconstitutionally vague. Davis’ § 2255 motion, the After the district court denied Supreme Court decided Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015), holding that the residual clause of the ACCA is unconstitutionally vague. We previously ordered further pursuant to 4th Cir. R. 22(a)(4). briefing from the parties Based on these briefs and our independent review of the record, we grant Davis a certificate of appealability on the issue of whether the district court erred in denying the above-referenced claims, and we remand for reconsideration of Davis’ § 2255 motion in light of Johnson. Accordingly, we vacate the district court’s order remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. dispense with contentions are oral argument adequately because presented in the the facts and We and legal materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. VACATED AND REMANDED 2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
